Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Incapacity Benefit & Occupational Pension


rosedee
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3972 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

2.5.1 Entitlement to Incapacity Benefit prior to 6 April 2001

 

Where a person has been continuously entitled to Incapacity Benefit since prior to 6 April 2001, pension payments will not affect Incapacity Benefit entitlement. If the claim is broken but the person later re-qualifies for Incapacity Benefit, pension payments can still be ignored if the periods of incapacity can be linked.

 

I dont think your pension will be taken into account against your ESA, if you go accross to ESA and are accepted you should receive the same benefit because you have transitional protection to April 2020 if you remain on ESA....

 

Also just found this for ESA conts people who claim is to close after 365 days :)

 

Having looked into this and received correspondence from the ESA Policy Team (via my MP) it would appear that at the end of one's one year on CB ESA (if placed in the WRAG) provided there is a gap of 12 weeks then one can submit another claim for CB ESA.

Edited by MIKEY DABODEE
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes if you are put in the WRAG then you will be subject to the 12 month rules....

but you should hopefully not go in there

 

here are the rules for pensions

 

Pensions prior to conversion

45465 Certain pension payments or PPF periodic payments, described at DMG 44716 et seq, do not fall to be deducted from ESA(Cont). In addition any pension payment or PPF periodic payment is disregarded1 where

 

1. the claimant was entitled to IB immediately before conversion to ESA and

2. IB was not reduced by a pension or PPF payment2 because

2.1 the claimant was entitled to DLA care component at the highest rate3 or

2.2 the claimant qualified for IB under the provisions for those incapacitated in youth because of previous entitlement to SDA4 or

2.3 the claimant was entitled to IB before 6.4.01 on any day of IfW in a PIW

which began before and continues after that date5

 

iro of your case but this may change

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its a pain, on IS you have to supply proof of pension every April even if there is no change...

 

the rules quoted for Pensions over £85 are for new claimants to ESA

and not for the OP :)

 

and yes you are different because you made your claim in 2007 and if you are put in the WRAG group after 12 months the above rule would apply

Edited by MIKEY DABODEE
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Hi I found this through Googling, as I am having trouble finding details about being transferred from IB to ESA. I have an OCCP and the job centre have deducted part of my pension quoting that any income is not disregarded. I have spoken to several different people and been told the same thing. I have received IB since before 2001.

 

Is there anything I can quote to them? Getting very frustrated and just want to know what is correct.

 

If you claimed before April 2001 then your pension will be disregarded on ESA.

You should receive the same ESA as your current rate of IB, if you pass the medical of course

Pensions prior to conversion

45465 Certain pension payments or PPF periodic payments, described at DMG 44716 et seq, do not fall to be deducted from ESA(Cont). In addition any pension payment or PPF periodic payment is disregarded1 where

 

1. the claimant was entitled to IB immediately before conversion to ESA and

2. IB was not reduced by a pension or PPF payment2 because

2.1 the claimant was entitled to DLA care component at the highest rate3 or

2.2 the claimant qualified for IB under the provisions for those incapacitated in youth because of previous entitlement to SDA4 or

2.3 the claimant was entitled to IB before 6.4.01 on any day of IfW in a PIW

which began before and continues after that date5

 

rules with the DMG number so you can quote them if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...